1. Introduction #
The Right to Equality (Articles 14–18) is the foundation of the Indian democratic and constitutional order. It ensures that every person is treated equally before the law, with equal protection of legal rights. It seeks to eliminate arbitrariness, discrimination, and social inequality.
“Equality is the essence of democracy.” — Justice Subba Rao, State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)
2. Constitutional Scheme #
| Article | Subject |
|---|---|
| 14 | Equality before law and equal protection of laws |
| 15 | Prohibition of discrimination on certain grounds |
| 16 | Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment |
| 17 | Abolition of untouchability |
| 18 | Abolition of titles |
3. Article 14 — Equality Before Law & Equal Protection of Laws #
3.1. Meaning #
Article 14 embodies two complementary concepts:
-
Equality Before Law — a negative concept:
-
No one is above the law.
-
Every person, regardless of status, is equally subject to the ordinary law of the land.
-
Origin: British Rule of Law (A. V. Dicey).
-
-
Equal Protection of Laws — a positive concept:
-
The State must treat equals equally and unequals differently, where necessary.
-
Origin: U.S. Constitution (14th Amendment).
-
Together, they ensure absence of arbitrariness and presence of fairness in State action.
3.2. Judicial Interpretation #
(a) Doctrine of Reasonable Classification #
The State can make laws differentiating between groups, provided the classification is reasonable.
Tests (State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75):
-
The classification must be based on intelligible differentia distinguishing persons or things grouped together from others.
-
The differentia must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the law.
📘 Case (FIRAC): State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)
Facts: Special Courts Act allowed speedy trials of “certain cases” without clear criteria.
Issue: Whether the Act violated Article 14.
Rule: Classification must be reasonable and non-arbitrary.
Application: The law gave unfettered discretion to the executive.
Conclusion: Struck down as violative of Article 14.
(b) New Doctrine of Equality — Equality and Arbitrariness #
In later years, the Court shifted focus from classification to arbitrariness.
📘 Case (FIRAC): E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974 AIR SC 555)
Facts: Transfer of a senior IAS officer alleged to be arbitrary.
Issue: Whether arbitrary executive action violates Article 14.
Rule: Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action.
Application: Equality and arbitrariness are antithetical.
Conclusion: Any arbitrary action, even without classification, violates Article 14.
“Equality is a dynamic concept; arbitrariness is the antithesis of equality.” — Justice Bhagwati
📘 Case: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) — Extended this principle to Articles 19 & 21, holding that arbitrary procedure is unconstitutional.
3.3. Core Significance of Article 14 #
-
Prevents arbitrary exercise of power.
-
Guarantees equal access to justice and non-discriminatory treatment.
-
Forms the foundation of rule of law in India.
4. Article 15 — Prohibition of Discrimination #
4.1. Text & Meaning #
Prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen on grounds of:
Religion, Race, Caste, Sex, or Place of Birth.
4.2. Exceptions #
-
Article 15(3): State may make special provisions for women and children.
-
Article 15(4) & (5): State may make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs).
📘 Case: State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (AIR 1951 SC 226)
-
First case on reservation — Court struck down caste-based educational reservations as violating Article 29(2).
-
Led to First Constitutional Amendment (1951) inserting Article 15(4).
📘 Case: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 477)
-
Upheld 27% OBC reservation, introduced the creamy layer principle, and capped total reservations at 50%.
5. Article 16 — Equality in Public Employment #
5.1. Meaning #
Ensures equal opportunity in public employment under the State.
“Equality of opportunity” applies both to initial appointments and promotion.
5.2. Clauses #
-
16(1): Equality of opportunity for all citizens.
-
16(2): Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence.
-
16(3)–(5): Allow Parliament or State to make exceptions (e.g., residence requirements, reservations).
5.3. Reservation in Employment #
-
Article 16(4): Permits reservations for backward classes not adequately represented.
-
16(4A) (added by 77th Amendment, 1995): Reservation in promotion for SC/ST employees.
-
16(4B) (85th Amendment, 2001): Consequential seniority for reserved category promotions.
📘 Case (FIRAC): Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
Facts: Mandal Commission’s recommendation for 27% OBC reservation challenged.
Issue: Validity of 27% reservation and whether Article 16(4) permits economic criteria.
Rule: Article 16(4) is an enabling provision for backward classes.
Application: 27% upheld; total reservation capped at 50%; no reservation in promotions (later modified).
Conclusion: Social backwardness + inadequate representation are valid bases for reservation.
6. Article 17 — Abolition of Untouchability #
6.1. Provision #
“Untouchability” is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. Enforcement of any disability arising from it shall be an offence punishable by law.
6.2. Statutory Support #
-
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955
-
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
📘 Case: State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale (1995 AIR SC 1128)
Court held that Article 17 is absolute and admits no justification for violation; it protects human dignity and equality of status.
7. Article 18 — Abolition of Titles #
7.1. Provision #
Prohibits:
-
The State from conferring titles (except academic/military distinctions).
-
Citizens from accepting titles from foreign States.
7.2. Judicial View #
📘 Case: Balaji Raghavan v. Union of India (1996 AIR SC 770)
Held:
-
National Awards (Padma awards) are not “titles” within Article 18.
-
They are constitutional recognitions, not hereditary distinctions.
8. Comprehensive Table: Judicial Interpretation of Articles 14–18 #
| Article | Subject | Key Judicial Principle | Leading Cases |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | Equality before law | Equality ≠ uniformity; prohibits arbitrariness | E. P. Royappa (1974), Maneka Gandhi (1978) |
| 15 | Non-discrimination | Special provisions for women & backward classes permissible | Champakam Dorairajan (1951), Indra Sawhney (1992) |
| 16 | Equality in employment | Reservation valid but subject to 50% ceiling | Indra Sawhney (1992), M. Nagaraj (2006) |
| 17 | Abolition of untouchability | Absolute prohibition; penal consequences | Appa Balu Ingale (1995) |
| 18 | Abolition of titles | Honorary awards valid if not hereditary | Balaji Raghavan (1996) |
9. Conceptual Summary #
| Concept | Old Doctrine | New Doctrine | Current Judicial Trend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equality | Formal equality — equal treatment | Substantive equality — fairness, non-arbitrariness | Dynamic and evolving; includes equality in results |
| Classification | Reasonable classification test | Arbitrariness test (E. P. Royappa) | Broad, purposive interpretation |
| Scope | State action only | Includes State instrumentalities | Expanding under Article 12 & 226 |
10. Conclusion #
The Right to Equality under Articles 14–18 is the bedrock of the Indian Constitution.
It goes beyond formal equality to establish substantive and social justice, reflecting the transformative vision of the framers.
“Equality is not merely the absence of discrimination; it is the presence of fairness and justice in all actions of the State.” — Justice P. N. Bhagwati
